The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[♪alt13]

And now for the CORRECT answer...



I'm not quite sure what OB means by "fluid" - is it that the definition of "gender" is changing or that a person's self-identity is fluid? Or both - or something else!

If you believe that humans have souls then you can believe that the soul can have a gender if that is how you feel comfortable thinking about it. Perhaps the gender of the soul is the opposite of the gender of the living person. Who really knows?

And is gender really so binary as One Brow seems to think? Why automatically reject the possibility that there could be more than two? There are people whose physical traits are somewhat ambiguous, even at the genetic level.

Preettttyyy sure OB was arguing that gender is not necessarily binary.

 

[colton]

Here is an honest question, and I hope is a reality someday:

What will happen if Elder Christofferson is the prophet someday, and he finds himself wrestling with a subject very much like the prophet did with the priesthood, except this time, it is about his brother, a very active LDS member...who is gay?

What happens if now President Christofferson gathers the 12 around (who by this time will be much more liberal and accepting of the LGBT community due to the way things are when they grow up) and they all agree with the new prophet, that the anti-LGBT marriage/temple rules are too discriminatory. So, they all decide to pray, receive the same revelation the 1st presidency and quorum received with African Americans, and decide to allow LGBT marry, receive temple blessings, etc.

What makes all this possible? The Church throwing Brigham Young under the bus recently with his anti-AA priesthood policies. They can now write a manefesto throwing all the current/previous leaders under the bus, calling them bigots, etc and say that our Heavenly Father loves all his children and we have now seen the light.

Me, I'll celebrate that day. How will a lot of members feel about that? Especially after all the fights that have been put up with the marriage issues currently going on?

Would you guys be okay if/hopefully when that happens?

I sustain the president of the church as the prophet and the only one who is authorized to receive that type of revelation. If the Pres. Christofferson were to announce that revelation in your scenario, I would accept it. But I don't see it as likely, and the church's teachings about homosexuality (consistently teaching that homosexual behavior is against the commandments) seem very different to me than the teachings about blacks prior to 1978 (consistently teaching that blacks would one day have the priesthood, albeit most felt it would be in the next life).

 

[One Brow]

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you both. I can pretend I am not a caucasian male, I can claim that I relate much better as a black female, ...

1) That really trivializes what for many people is a highly painful, difficult revelation. Did you take your notions straight from South Park?

2) When I spoke about four ways of deciding gender, three of them are completely physical, and in no way depend upon a persons subjective understanding of their place in this world. You can look at genetic make-up, external genitals, or internal organs, and they may differ. A person can be XY with testes and female genitals, or XY with ovaries and female genitals, or XY with ovaries and male genitals, or ... . So much depends on which proteins get expressed at which times developmentally. Discussing such people in a male/female dichotomy, much less claiming this dichotomy applies to a soul, just seems silly.

However, I won't discuss that topic further in this thread. I may make a new one if I feel the discussion needs to continue.

 

[LogGrad98]

1) That really trivializes what for many people is a highly painful, difficult revelation. Did you take your notions straight from South Park?

2) When I spoke about four ways of deciding gender, three of them are completely physical, and in no way depend upon a persons subjective understanding of their place in this world. You can look at genetic make-up, external genitals, or internal organs, and they may differ. A person can be XY with testes and female genitals, or XY with ovaries and female genitals, or XY with ovaries and male genitals, or ... . So much depends on which proteins get expressed at which times developmentally. Discussing such people in a male/female dichotomy, much less claiming this dichotomy applies to a soul, just seems silly.

However, I won't discuss that topic further in this thread. I may make a new one if I feel the discussion needs to continue.

We can agree to disagree, or you can start another thread. Either way I think it is a HUGE stretch to start saying that gender should be multi-faceted in any meaningful way. What percentage of viable embryos with mixed gender DNA actually get born anyway? In any realistic way this would be viewed as an anomaly and a mutation that will realistically never be passed into the gene pool as a viable DNA construct.

 

[green]

Don't know why I went on that ramble, but it feels good getting it out in the open. I cannot talk to my wife about this, or my parents, or my children. I have few friends that get it, and I have broached the subject with a few and all I get is either "yeah get out of that brain-washing thing" or "you just need to pray about it harder" as the standard responses in one form or another.

Thanks for all of that. The temple is something I do wonder about. Struggle isn't the right word, but wonder. For example, why has the ceremony changed? Why has it softened? Also, with today's available information, are certain rituals really going to get me into heaven, when any person, member or not, worthy or not, can look up the symbols and have them at their side? Also, why the familiarity with the Mason ceremonies?

I get the lessons to be learned. I get the importance of symbolism. I get the importance of making covenants. But, certain parts seem very man made, very 1800's, and very unnecessary.

 

[green]

Thanks for sharing this. I have profound respect for how different people experience these things differently and for those who find happiness, solace, fulfillment etc. from religion. (Provided, that is, they don't expect others to feel the same way. Once they cross this line, I lose my respect.)

Even when I was a devout believer, I always felt uncomfortable in the temple. If there is anything cult like in the LDS Church, this is certainly it, and when I was in the midst of a ceremony, I felt like a cultist (I really did this is not hindsight). I recall one day I went to the temple hoping to find inspiration to settle my growing doubts about the Church and . . . nothing. There was no inspiration, because, I realized, there was no inspiration to get, it was just a dumb cultish ceremony, nothing more. (That's how I felt, I realize others feel differently, and I'm not suggesting everyone should feel the same.) I never went back.

I do have a problem with the bolded part. Cult is the word everyone loves to throw around when they leave the church. To be fair to the church, temple ceremonies are very, very similar to a lot of other Christian worship services. I have been through the temple with many former Catholics and other Protestant members and they all have told me something to the effect of, "We were wondering when we would go through these types of ceremonies."

They do a lot of those ceremonies during their weekly service. We don't. We do them in the temple. That isn't cultist in the least. Unless, of course, you think all those religions are cultists as well.

 

[colton]

Thanks for all of that. The temple is something I do wonder about. Struggle isn't the right word, but wonder. For example, why has the ceremony changed? Why has it softened? Also, with today's available information, are certain rituals really going to get me into heaven, when any person, member or not, worthy or not, can look up the symbols and have them at their side?

Also, why the familiarity with the Mason ceremonies?

I get the lessons to be learned. I get the importance of symbolism. I get the importance of making covenants. But, certain parts seem very man made, very 1800's, and very unnecessary.

As you said, I think it's about the importance of making covenants. That's what is "going to get me into heaven", not the rituals. The rituals serve as a vehicle for the covenants. To me it seems clear that Joseph Smith used the Masonic rituals as a basis for the ceremony in which the covenants are presented/made. It doesn't both me that the the ceremony is similar to the Masonic rituals, though, because the covenants themselves are the foundation... and that is the aspect that isn't at all similar to Free Masonry. I'm not too worried about similarities in the vehicle. Similarly, it doesn't bother me that the ceremony has changed a bit, because that's just the vehicle.

 

[green]

I sustain the president of the church as the prophet and the only one who is authorized to receive that type of revelation. If the Pres. Christofferson were to announce that revelation in your scenario, I would accept it. But I don't see it as likely, and the church's teachings about homosexuality (consistently teaching that homosexual behavior is against the commandments) seem very different to me than the teachings about blacks prior to 1978 (consistently teaching that blacks would one day have the priesthood, albeit most felt it would be in the next life).

Here is where you an I differ greatly. I have always been taught that the feelings of homosexuality are NOT a sin. The sin is in breaking the Law of Chastity. If LGBT can marry, they are no longer breaking the Law of Chastity, and no longer sinning.

Correct?

Where, with the priesthood issue, AA had never sinned in this life (but they had sinned somewhere previously, but not in this life. We don't turn "black" when we sin), yet were still denied the opportunity.

In my mind, the AA issue is much worse, much more egregious act by the Church. It was nothing more than bigotry. That's why it would be much easier for the Church to accept LGBT into the "fold". Once they are married, the sin is now gone.

The issue here is marriage, and that is why the Church has suddenly gotten so active in the fight against gay marriage. If LGBT people can get married, then they aren't sinning anymore. They can have families, obey the law of chastity, and do everything else that straight members can do.

That is why I think once the gay marriage becomes accepted by law, and another 10 years pass and then accepted by the common man, the Church can quite easily say, "look, they are keeping ALL the commandments, they should be allowed to make the covenants and receive the blessings that come from keeping the commandments."

Boom, write a manifesto calling whoever a bigot, say all their general conference talks about how homosexuality is a sin were not inspired by God, but instead inspired by hatred, and move on.

The Church has done that before.

That is just my point of view, and I really, really appreciate your response. If you know of any, are there any scriptures that differentiate homosexuality from adultery or fornication? Anything that says that adultery and fornication are wrong because they are done outside the covenant of marriage, while homosexuality is wrong because it's fundamentally wrong? Thanks.

 

[green]

As you said, I think it's about the importance of making covenants. That's what is "going to get me into heaven", not the rituals. The rituals serve as a vehicle for the covenants. To me it seems clear that Joseph Smith used the Masonic rituals as a basis for the ceremony in which the covenants are presented/made. It doesn't both me that the the ceremony is similar to the Masonic rituals, though, because the covenants themselves are the foundation... and that is the aspect that isn't at all similar to Free Masonry. I'm not too worried about similarities in the vehicle. Similarly, it doesn't bother me that the ceremony has changed a bit, because that's just the vehicle.

Great insight. Thank you very much.

 

[Nightmare]

Since this is a religious discussion, I'll try to say as little as possible.

Gender is far too fluid of a concept to say that an immaterial soul can have a binary gender. There are at least four different ways to define the gender of a person, no two of which have to agree.

I think only two genders. Determined entirely if they have a y Chromosome. All other 'genders' are branches off of those.

 

[colton]

Here is where you an I differ greatly. I have always been taught that the feelings of homosexuality are NOT a sin. The sin is in breaking the Law of Chastity. If LGBT can marry, they are no longer breaking the Law of Chastity, and no longer sinning.

Correct?

No, the church clearly teaches that homosexual actions are sinful, regardless of whether the individuals are civilly married or not.

For example, the Church Handbook of Instructions includes a "Policies on Moral Issues" section at the end. It includes these statements:

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbo...-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#214

Chastity and Fidelity

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

Homosexual Behavior and Same-Gender Attraction

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

So, which you are correct that the church teaches that feelings of homosexuality are NOT a sin, you are incorrect when saying the only sin is having sexual relations outside of a civil marriage.

... If LGBT people can get married, then they aren't sinning anymore. They can have families, obey the law of chastity, and do everything else that straight members can do.

That is why I think once the gay marriage becomes accepted by law, and another 10 years pass and then accepted by the common man, the Church can quite easily say, "look, they are keeping ALL the commandments, they should be allowed to make the covenants and receive the blessings that come from keeping the commandments."

It would take a lot more than that, in my opinion, because as showed above the church view is NOT that they are keeping all of the commandments. In fact, they are breaking a serious one (as currently taught by the church).

... That is just my point of view, and I really, really appreciate your response. If you know of any, are there any scriptures that differentiate homosexuality from adultery or fornication? Anything that says that adultery and fornication are wrong because they are done outside the covenant of marriage, while homosexuality is wrong because it's fundamentally wrong? Thanks.

Well, here's the Topical Guide entry on homosexuality.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/homosexual-behavior?lang=eng&letter=h

I don't see anything there EXCEPT for references which indicate homosexual behavior is always wrong. There are no qualifiers as to whether the individuals are civilly married.

 

[Batman]

I have areas of disagreement with the church, and my belief in God has been wavering for a decade or more now, despite my mission and all that. I would say at this point I am more or less agnostic or at least agnostic-leaning. I am still more or less active in the church, but I simply do not feel anything from it like I did when I was younger or like others claim to do.

I feel good when I get emails from my daughter talking about her mission, and for father's day this year she wrote me a poem that really brought tears to my eyes, but I don't view that as the workings of the "spirit".

After quite a long hiatus (a few years really) my wife and I went back to the temple to be able to escort our daughter through, and then attended several times with her, and I have made a real effort this year in particular to reconnect and see what might be there for me in this religion. But in the temple I really just felt kind of ridiculous. I get that it is all symbolism and I studied it enough earlier in my life that I know what that symbolism for the most part is supposed to be, but in the temple with the clothes on, etc. I just kind of felt silly, and none of it resonated.

I felt like I was there with an open heart, as I had been preparing to help my daughter have a good experience there, which included reading the BoM for the first time in maybe a decade. But all I felt was silly. And frankly I was disappointed that I didn't have the same spiritual experience my wife and daughter obviously did.

Maybe I am just not on the same spiritual plane, or, as the thought that occurred to me in the celestial room in the Salt Lake temple, maybe this is all window-dressing and really is just silly. I honestly don't know, which is why I feel I relate more as an agnostic than anything else right now.

I have had experiences in my life that I cannot explain, and fit religious explanations better than anything else I can imagine. Experiences connected to my cancer, things to do with my kids, and other things that are just too perfect to have been coincidence, including a near-death experience I have spoken of here before. And it is these experiences that I feel I cannot deny, that when I try to deny them I feel just, well, wrong inside, that keep me from leaving it entirely at this point.

Don't know why I went on that ramble, but it feels good getting it out in the open. I cannot talk to my wife about this, or my parents, or my children. I have few friends that get it, and I have broached the subject with a few and all I get is either "yeah get out of that brain-washing thing" or "you just need to pray about it harder" as the standard responses in one form or another.

Sincere post. A lot of depth there. Thanks for sharing.

 

[bigb]

I have areas of disagreement with the church, and my belief in God has been wavering for a decade or more now, despite my mission and all that. I would say at this point I am more or less agnostic or at least agnostic-leaning. I am still more or less active in the church, but I simply do not feel anything from it like I did when I was younger or like others claim to do.

I feel good when I get emails from my daughter talking about her mission, and for father's day this year she wrote me a poem that really brought tears to my eyes, but I don't view that as the workings of the "spirit".

After quite a long hiatus (a few years really) my wife and I went back to the temple to be able to escort our daughter through, and then attended several times with her, and I have made a real effort this year in particular to reconnect and see what might be there for me in this religion. But in the temple I really just felt kind of ridiculous. I get that it is all symbolism and I studied it enough earlier in my life that I know what that symbolism for the most part is supposed to be, but in the temple with the clothes on, etc. I just kind of felt silly, and none of it resonated.

I felt like I was there with an open heart, as I had been preparing to help my daughter have a good experience there, which included reading the BoM for the first time in maybe a decade. But all I felt was silly. And frankly I was disappointed that I didn't have the same spiritual experience my wife and daughter obviously did.

Maybe I am just not on the same spiritual plane, or, as the thought that occurred to me in the celestial room in the Salt Lake temple, maybe this is all window-dressing and really is just silly. I honestly don't know, which is why I feel I relate more as an agnostic than anything else right now.

I have had experiences in my life that I cannot explain, and fit religious explanations better than anything else I can imagine. Experiences connected to my cancer, things to do with my kids, and other things that are just too perfect to have been coincidence, including a near-death experience I have spoken of here before. And it is these experiences that I feel I cannot deny, that when I try to deny them I feel just, well, wrong inside, that keep me from leaving it entirely at this point.

Don't know why I went on that ramble, but it feels good getting it out in the open. I cannot talk to my wife about this, or my parents, or my children. I have few friends that get it, and I have broached the subject with a few and all I get is either "yeah get out of that brain-washing thing" or "you just need to pray about it harder" as the standard responses in one form or another.

This is a great post and I have something to share, but it's WAY mire than I want to type on my phone. Next week sometime I'll have time at my desktop.

 

[green]

Thanks Colton. Do you have a copy of a church handbook when AA were denied the priesthood? I'd be curious as to what it says and if/how they changed the wording when the revelations came.

Anyways, thanks again.

 

[green]

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel.

Also, I find the above lines very interesting and very, very easily changed. If gay marriage is allowed, then homosexual couples could have the blessings found in family life. If gay marriage is allowed in the temple, then they can take part in the saving ordinances of the gospel. If gay marriage is allowed, and viewed as ok, then they do not violate the commandments of God when taken part in the bonds of marriage.

So, that whole paragraph can easily be sidestepped by the Church if they decide to do so.

That being said, the only bit that would be sticky is the line, "contrary to the purposes of human sexuality". That might be tough to talk your way out of, but this line shows me that they can easily just throw some old "bigoted" leaders under the bus:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

You can rewrite it to say:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that homosexuality is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that same sex marriages are a sin; or that homosexuals or people of any other LGBT orientation are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all bigotry, past and present, in any form.

Anyways, I don't see the same speed bumps towards this change as you do. But, we will see over time.

 

[green]

Here is a thought I just had:

AA people were denied the priesthood because they were born "wrong".

The Church has accepted the thought that homosexual feelings are something that some people have to no fault of their own. The doctrine right now is that those feelings can be "corrected" and denied.

As it becomes more and more accepted that LGBT people aren't choosing to be that way, but instead are born that way, then all of the sudden LGBT people are exactly the same as AA people.

They were born "wrong."

Why would you deny eternal blessings and covenants to someone who did nothing wrong, other than being born "wrong"?

You wouldn't.

 

[colton]

Thanks Colton. Do you have a copy of a church handbook when AA were denied the priesthood? I'd be curious as to what it says and if/how they changed the wording when the revelations came.

No, I don't even know if there was such a thing back then. I agree, it would be interesting to look at. There's no question as to whether church leaders taught racist doctrines with regards to people of African ancestry (many did), but I don't know of any who indicated blacks wouldn't someday receive the priesthood.

Anyways, thanks again.

You're welcome.

 

[colton]

Here is a thought I just had:

AA people were denied the priesthood because they were born "wrong".

The Church has accepted the thought that homosexual feelings are something that some people have to no fault of their own. The doctrine right now is that those feelings can be "corrected" and denied.

As it becomes more and more accepted that LGBT people aren't choosing to be that way, but instead are born that way, then all of the sudden LGBT people are exactly the same as AA people.

They were born "wrong."

Why would you deny eternal blessings and covenants to someone who did nothing wrong, other than being born "wrong"?

You wouldn't.

I disagree with the analogy. The church policy on LGBTs has everything to do with behavior, and that makes all the difference. A better analogy would be with, say, alcoholics. The church recognizes that some people are predisposed towards alcoholism, and it's very likely genetic. That doesn't excuse the behavior, though. It just means that they have a unique set of challenges they must battle. I've mentioned before that my grandfather was an alcoholic. If I recall correctly his father and several of his brothers were also alcoholics. But during the part of his life when I knew him he never touched a drop. That's what the church similarly expects from its homosexual members.

 

[b_line]

Would never happen. Or at least, It does not seem possible. Why you ask?

First, the priesthood thing is different. It's not a matter of sin but of timing. All throughout biblical history certain groups did not hold the priesthood. Consider for just a moment that for quite a while the only tribe that was allowed to have the priesthood was the tribe of Levi. Heck even the Gentiles (non Jewish) were not allowed to be taught the gospel for a while. It's all about timing.

Second, I have always been taught that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes and it is pretty clear from biblical text that it is (One of my best friends is gay and married to a man so please don't think I hate gay people. I do think it's weird. I can't imagine being attracted to a man sexually. The idea grosses me out But I still love my gay friend the way I love my straight friends. Heterosexually). At one point the bible says "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination before me." Allowing gays to be married for time and all eternity would make no sense. God ordained marriage to be between a man a woman for the purpose of procreation, if you are looking at it from a theoretical point of view. And God does not condone sin. If the church allowed that they would pretty much be saying God has changed his mind about the nature of Marriage and that would pretty much disprove God.

The bible also says women should shut up in public and hide their faces. Does your wife ever go out in public and make any noise? Maybe we try to glean the most important things from the bible instead of taking it literally?

 

[b_line]

I hear you, and share many of your sentiments. However, I don't see why you find "God didn't want the priesthood exclusion on blacks" and "God gave a revelation ending the priesthood exclusion on blacks" to be mutually exclusive. I don't.

I do not think they are mutually exclusive. I just think that if any person with half a heart was listening to God, that person would have decided that the revelation should have never had to happen in the first place. It's just common kindness and equality for all man, which is supposed to be a major tenet of being Christian. If we profess to be followers of Christ, why does it take a "revelation" to get the leaders of christs church to not be racist?